New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016

New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016

New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016

On 1 July 2016, the new law increasing the maximum fines that the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") can impose for an infringement of competition law will enter into force. The legislative proposal was adopted by the Dutch parliament at the end of 2015. The main purpose of the new law is to increase the deterrent effect of fines [see our August 2014 newsletter].

Under the previous fining rules, the ACM can impose fines of up to EUR 450,000 or 10% of the company's annual turnover, depending on which amount is higher. According to the new rules the maximum fine will increase to EUR 900,000 or, if higher, 10% of a company's turnover. For cartel infringements, the maximum fine is multiplied by the number of years in which the cartel was in place subject to a maximum of four years. This means that the new maximum fine for cartel infringements in the Netherlands is now 40% of a company's worldwide annual turnover.

As a result, the ACM's fining guidelines will also be adjusted from 1 July 2016. In addition to a new maximum fine for individuals of EUR 900,000, these guidelines set out a new methodology for the fining of natural persons. The guidelines now distinguish between different ranges of the basic fine for individuals, which are in particular linked to the annual turnover of the company.

The previous fine maximums remain applicable to infringements of competition law that started before 1 July 2016, even if they come to an end after this date. This means that the new maximum fines will only apply to infringements starting on or after 1 July 2016.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of July 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

Related news

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies: